skipair wrote:Kevin, what do you mean by "consciousness" when you say "we are a whole lot more than just consciousness"?

By consciousness I mean awareness, and reasoning ability.

But this only exists within a huge support network, and is inseparably linked to it. That whole network is what I call "soul".

Awareness and reasoning ability exists within a huge support network.....of what? Do you mean to say there is more than the fact of our consciousness, considering what we are able to do with it? Otherwise, anything you assert as being part of this network and not of awareness will be in contradiction.

David Quinn wrote:Brokenhead seems to have reincarnated into a clone of Samadhi. He has suddenly become an exact copy of him. Did he will this, I wonder?

Suddenly, as in just now it happened?

You are so full of shit. What tweaked you? That I called you a liar because you backtracked poorly and denied having said something that you really did say?

You are truly a heavenly man, filled with God's love and glorious light.

You know very well Samadhi and I have nothing in common.

You sounded just like him in that post - the importance of surrendering the will; accusing those who affirm the truth of causation and the illusory nature of free-will of "copping-out". It was uncanny.

Ataraxia wrote:Hmmm,I must admit I didn't quite expect that reply from Kevin.

In my opinion the idea of the Trinity was created by a person of some genius who was trying to understand and express the relationship between duality ("the son") and non-duality ("the Father", or the Totality). I believe this is a common theme in many cultures, not just Catholicism.

Ataraxia wrote:Hmmm,I must admit I didn't quite expect that reply from Kevin.

In my opinion the idea of the Trinity was created by a person of some genius who was trying to understand and express the relationship between duality ("the son") and non-duality ("the Father", or the Totality). I believe this is a common theme in many cultures, not just Catholicism.

I'm more concerned about your views of the 'holy spirit'

Initially you say in regard to the soul:

K :Ultimately there's nothing that it isn't.

Me,thinking there is only one 'thing' that fits that criteria--God/Totality--asks is there any difference between your soul and mine.Are they the same? You reply no in so many words :

Ataraxia wrote:I'm more concerned about your views of the 'holy spirit'

Initially you say in regard to the soul:

K :Ultimately there's nothing that it isn't.

Me,thinking there is only one 'thing' that fits that criteria--God/Totality--asks is there any difference between your soul and mine.Are they the same? You reply no in so many words :

K: So, my soul is different to yours,

Clearly this is a contradiction

It is common to experience a certain "spirit" associated with different places, and different people. Australian aborigines refer to "spirit of place." One cave has a certain spirit, a different cave has a different spirit, and the areas surrounding the cave might have a different spirit again. Likewise, you meet one person who has a good spirit, and you meet another person who has a bad spirit.

We use the word "spirit" because it is difficult to pin-down to any one particular thing, or even to a group of things. The spirit of a particular tree is more than just the trunk, the branches, and the leaves — rather, the "spirit" of a particular tree connects to the whole environment, as well as to the person experiencing the tree.

Ultimately it's spirit is everything — once we trace all the causal connections — but in practice we experience different spirits in different situations.

In this way "spirit" is a bridging term for that which appears to be inbetween a concrete, finite, easily recognizable thing, and the Totality.

Kevin Solway wrote:It is common to experience a certain "spirit" associated with different places, and different people. Australian aborigines refer to "spirit of place." One cave has a certain spirit, a different cave has a different spirit, and the areas surrounding the cave might have a different spirit again. Likewise, you meet one person who has a good spirit, and you meet another person who has a bad spirit.

Thats basically an appeal to superstition.I don't subscribe to any of that,i just go where reason takes me.Actually it's come as a bit of a suprise to me that you do.

We use the word "spirit" because it is difficult to pin-down to any one particular thing, or even to a group of things. The spirit of a particular tree is more than just the trunk, the branches, and the leaves — rather, the "spirit" of a particular tree connects to the whole environment, as well as to the person experiencing the tree.

Ultimately it's spirit is everything — once we trace all the causal connections — but in practice we experience different spirits in different situations.

In this way "spirit" is a bridging term for that which appears to be inbetween a concrete, finite, easily recognizable thing, and the Totality.

So the 'spirit' is ineffable.I can't help wondering if it is anything at all.

You're thinking of a "spirit" that's separate to the thing in question, and is possibly a conscious spirit. That would be a superstition.

That's not what I mean by "spirit."

So the 'spirit' is ineffable.

It is experienced, and can be described.

For example, a person who has a "bad spirit" might be described as being black in nature, as having hidden secrets, as being menacing and unpredictable, as being fearful and defensive. However, it's more difficult to describe than, say, describing their height and weight.

In a sense it is more "mysterious" because we know less detail about it. There's more to what's going on than we are immediately aware of.

Kevin Solway wrote:In my opinion the idea of the Trinity was created by a person of some genius who was trying to understand and express the relationship between duality ("the son") and non-duality ("the Father", or the Totality). I believe this is a common theme in many cultures, not just Catholicism.

The son aspect is also often depicted as woman or woman and child for what I see as obvious reasons. But this is also wisdom and mind.

The father aspect would be what we call here causality.

Spirit would indeed be reflecting the idea of essence, as in genus which is closely related to awareness - essence of sense. Holy spirit is then more specifically our consciousness of the absolute.

Kevin Solway wrote:In my opinion the idea of the Trinity was created by a person of some genius who was trying to understand and express the relationship between duality ("the son") and non-duality ("the Father", or the Totality).

Were you raised as a Christian, Kevin? You seem to have an attachment to reading favourable things into Biblical pap. Or perhaps it's actually a symptom of megalomania: scripture and major religion all support everything you preach. Of course not coincidentally: you're the only one who can correctly understand and translate the Bible - the trained biblical scholars have it all wrong.

Last edited by Jason on Thu Aug 21, 2008 8:36 pm, edited 1 time in total.

dejavu wrote:. . . in the moment one is willing, one does not reflect upon the action, and one becomes a part of that moment drawing itself. One performs a liberating, creative act in oneself

I suppose that one could say that all things are free in the moment. It's only when one considers the causes of things that one realizes that the freedom is an illusion.

The will is not free, but willing is.

I would agree that our willing is "free" in the sense that we don't know what we will do before we do it, and so it feels like we have some latitude. But God knows what we will do before we do it, so to speak, and provides no latitude.

Kevin Solway wrote:In my opinion the idea of the Trinity was created by a person of some genius who was trying to understand and express the relationship between duality ("the son") and non-duality ("the Father", or the Totality).

Were you raised as a Christian, Kevin? You seem to have an attachment to reading favourable things into Biblical pap.

Not particularly, but when I started reading the Bible with the idea that "God" meant "Nature" (or "the All"), then I was able to see the Bible in a much different light, and all of a sudden Jesus appeared to be quite a wise fellow.

you're the only one who can correctly understand and translate the Bible - the trained biblical scholars have it all wrong.

I don't know for sure if I am interpreting the word "God" in the way that Jesus, for example, intended the word to be understood. But I think there's a good chance that I am. Even if I'm wrong in my interpretation, it's good to be able to extract truth from something where none was intended!

Jason wrote:perhaps it's actually a symptom of megalomania: scripture and major religion all support everything you preach. Of course not coincidentally: you're the only one who can correctly understand and translate the Bible - the trained biblical scholars have it all wrong.

It would seem to me way more megalomanic to preach something that has nothing to do with anything that anyone has said before on the subject. It's a way more sane assumption that reason has led many people to very similar insights on the matter, as it's kind of unavoidable if you think about it.

It's therefore one approach to doubt everything, like a lion devouring all past obsolete structures. It's another thing to assume, almost naive, the best interpretation from what's been said before, somewhat like a child.

Kevin Solway wrote:In my opinion the idea of the Trinity was created by a person of some genius who was trying to understand and express the relationship between duality ("the son") and non-duality ("the Father", or the Totality).

Were you raised as a Christian, Kevin? You seem to have an attachment to reading favourable things into Biblical pap.

Not particularly, but when I started reading the Bible with the idea that "God" meant "Nature" (or "the All"), then I was able to see the Bible in a much different light, and all of a sudden Jesus appeared to be quite a wise fellow.

Same thing happened to me when I realized that Wally, from "Where's Wally", was actually God. Where is Wally indeed!

Diebert van Rhijn wrote:It would seem to me way more megalomanic to preach something that has nothing to do with anything that anyone has said before on the subject. It's a way more sane assumption that reason has led many people to very similar insights on the matter, as it's kind of unavoidable if you think about it.

It's therefore one approach to doubt everything, like a lion devouring all past obsolete structures. It's another thing to assume, almost naive, the best interpretation from what's been said before, somewhat like a child.

There's a third approach: interpret as accurately and objectively as possible.